Is he right? Is gameplay really detrimental to video games? If the gameplay will start to suck at one point...

>implying stories can't be repetitive, full of tired cliches, overused plot beats and stereotyped/stock characters

>narrative, lore, story,
You can get all this while having good gameplay though, but I struggle to enjoy those things even if they're really good when the gameplay isn't as enjoyable. At that point the gameplay just becomes a hindrance and you might as well watch a movie.

Guaranteed this guy got "bored" of Sekiro after he had "seen all of the functionality" in his 5 hours trying to kill the Ogre

Ahhh, yes. Chess is forgotten to time exactly for this reason, no narrative to drive your interest.

Attached: fuck_gameplay.png (907x189, 46.38K)

>You can get all this while having good gameplay
Sure, no one's saying you can't. But an alternative is making gameplay easy so it doesn't get in the way due to being super challenging. Like Kojumbles's movie mode.

>will ultimately become repetitive
False premise. There are great games with shallow stories like Mega Man and great games with shallow gameplay like Asura's Wrath.

It's like watching people discuss sandwiches and in the corner hearing people going on about how much they hate fucking bread.

No, you ricky gervais looking motherfucker. To a super story-driven game or one that's trying to make you think, the gameplay can be detrimental to the experience; Dujanah, as an example, is more of a showcase of music and clay art, where you go around talking to people. The actual gameplay aspect of collecting the arcade tokens through pretty bad arcade games (Which is the only mandatory part of the game) is detrimental to the experience. 99.9% of games aren't like this though, you play to have fun, and keep playing because the gameplay is fun and you want to see what comes next. If seeing if Celeste overcomes her cringe mental illness is the only reason you're playing and not for the challenge, go read a fucking book, fucking moron

Attached: # angry.png (440x440, 184.11K)

He's right though.
Imagine that your favorite game has turned into an abstract tetris-looking thing with cubes and circles replacing all characters and all environments. Nothing but pure gameplay. You might still enjoy it, but is the enjoyment value still the same or did it dwindle?

You heard it here first. Tetris isn't a game because you don't think when playing it.

Attached: tetris_isnt_a_game.png (911x264, 44.87K)

What if my favourite game is tetris?

Okay so take a game, and take away all the gameplay.
You have a movie. Or worse Final Fantasy XIII

I'd much rather play Tetris forever than The Last of Us on repeat for decades

Nobody who touts 'Gameplay first' is also saying 'Games should be about gameplay and have zero other visual or audio elements'. Tired of people like you arguing over semantics. Fuck you.

Do racing games need a story?

On the contrary, every story is just a different(if you're lucky) take on an old story you've already seen a thousand times.
Never in my life have I been as disinterested in stories as now, but engaging gameplay is forever.

What the fuck are you even trying to say?

Both gameplay and the atmosphere are crucial to creating a good game but it's the story that gets stale easier. Super Meat Boy, FTL and Civilization don't have much of a story but they're still great games with tons of replayability. On the other hand, story-driven titles like The Stanley's Parable are only playable once.

That car would be slippery as fuck. Clearly these devs have never actually climbed and messed around with frozen cars before.

Yes. What's the difference between driving 10 tracks or 10000 tracks? It's boring without any twists unlike a story.

Attached: why_even_play.png (901x177, 45.17K)

Honestly if you don't care about gameplay in a game then maybe this isn't the right hobby for you.

Gameplay should be first because that is the strength of the medium: the interactivity of it. Those other things he mentioned shouldn't be discarded though. The best games have fantastic gameplay on top of good stories, atmosphere, music, etc. But those things should all work to enhance the experience built on gameplay, rather than working in spite of it.

Cities Skyline is a game about building a fucking city, no story or atmosphere, just a fucking city.
Yet I would rather play that game for 10 million hours over any story driven game.

Fuck, didn't mean to reply there.

Atmosphere is not a thing that can be done by itself. Good atmosphere is the result of artstyle, music, sound effects and so on.

The tracks have a lot of turns though.

>Games don't need to be games.
Absolute state of [current year] gaming.

I play ASCII roguelikes so nothing changes.

Depends on the game. If you're talking about Ubisoft games with tons of filler content and big worlds, yes, after a few hours you've pretty much done and seen all. If you are talking about games with higher learning curves like Souls games, rhythm games, SHMUPS, online multiplayer games, then no, story is irrelevant. It's about overcoming a challenge and getting gud. His post also implies most platformers, especially older ones, aren't fun. If you don't think old Mario and Mega Man games are fun then you're a fucking retard.

Attached: 1543476608415s.jpg (250x250, 5.15K)

You just need to mod those games and then they become fun.

considering I played the shit out of VR Missions, I'd say yes. not so smug now huh retard?

>Is he right?
No, that pretentious kid is not "right".

>Is gameplay really detrimental to video games?
No.

>If the gameplay will start to suck at one point...
That's an assumption that only someone who doesn't like videogames and has very little experience with the medium can make.

and he hasn't turned his brain back on ever since

if the gameplay is not engaging with just abstract figures then your game is going to be shit, all the rest of the elements have to be built arround and to enhance gameplay.

This is only true for shit games with shallow gameplay.

>gameplay becomes repetitive

And replaying the same story over and over again doesn't? There's a reason why the only games people put thousands of hours into are pure gameplay and have almost non-existent stories.

Attached: 1583057255306.jpg (570x570, 28.64K)

The two most important aspects of a game are gameplay and music. In that order with visuals/art style as a third, lesser important aspect. Your game can survive on the strength of these two to three aspects alone. Story and narrative and completely optional.

Splatoon 2 has such good gameplay that it never became boring after thousands of hours. Arma's gameplay is merely a tool to navigate its limitless content and scenarios. Only a couple of examples.

Sounds like someone that just plays the flavor of the week console game, moves onto the next. Never gets invested in any one of them. Never digs deeper in any of them beyond a surface level playthrough then pretends to know everything about games on a message board.

Game stories are the worst reason to play them. Read a book or watch a movie. Games are always compromised in the story, or a shit game, or both.

That's gotta be the dumbest shit I've ever read and I've heard some truly retarded shit from atheists

This. The funny thing is most of them don't even read. I can tell you, man, The Count of Monte Cristo is a better story than any game will ever have

This - not hard to grasp.

Yeah of course there are lots of supporting factors (graphics, story, audio, etc.) but if the gameplay sucks what's the point, it's a game.

There are some exceptions but I think they're rare. Witcher 3 has mediocre gameplay but everything else is very high quality, likewise Planescape Torment has aged and lacklustre gameplay but the setting, story, etc. are still top tier.

I think if the story / setting are extremely engaging but the gameplay is weak, you're probably in it more for the visual novel aspect with okay gameplay making guest appearances.

>but the core gameplay is so offensively bad that I can't play more than 10 minutes of it without feeling physically sick
I think you're just a pussy, how does NV make someone sick, like how fucking bitch made are you?

Attached: 1560849856776.png (308x308, 92.55K)

>epic reicky gervais OC
>pseudo intellectual has pseudo intellectual opinions

Attached: 1579107973233.png (415x620, 407.24K)

Games like Minecraft and Garrysmod show a game doesn't have to have a story to be popular and/or good

Attached: 82b1934fe93a.jpg (1920x1080, 1.31M)

>story won't get repetitive
Is this guy from a parallel universe where they constantly hire voice actors for ingame movies that last hundreds of hours?

Your problem is that you're playing garbage indieshit made by college dropouts who failed to get a book published so took out their frustrations on video games

Go play something that was made to be a game

A lot of people who play games really don't think about gameplay. They don't think about how they can push mechanics further, how certain things will interact, why a dev would include a mechanic or anything past do the minimum required for progression. Even if the fun of a game is the more varied nature, or a mechanic that seems like a slog on the surface but actually creates a great atmosphere. At best they can learn to do a single thing and then apply it without change. Which makes them really struggle with some genres, ones that aren't just a tick sheet of do right thing for story nuggets.

Attached: 1575881901906.png (432x375, 225.97K)

But that's not what he said, what the fuck was the purpose of this retarded thread?

Holy shit this looks terrible.
>jumps without preparation
>doesn't slip and break her back
>what the fuck is happening with the snow
>bitch climbs waaaaay too fast, in reality climbing would take her anywhere between 10 seconds and a minute

No. Dying Light's gameplay was superior to the story.
Also, get this ReeesetEra s.o.yboy out of my face.

Attached: ETqHDRNWkAIkIEA.jpg (921x2048, 251.16K)